delete_graph

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key constraint (active graphs cannot be deleted), the resulting HTTP 409 status, and the remedy. It does not mention irreversibility or permission requirements, but the core behavioral risk is covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by the critical constraint and corrective action. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter delete operation, the description provides the essential operational context: what can be deleted, what cannot, the error behavior, and how to resolve it. No output schema exists, but none is critically needed for this action.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema only provides a graphId string with 0% coverage from the description. The description does not explain how to obtain graphId, its format, or its role beyond the implied 'graph'. Given the low schema coverage, more parameter-level guidance was expected.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with 'Удалить граф' — a clear, specific verb and resource — and immediately distinguishes the tool's scope by warning that an active graph cannot be deleted. This clearly differentiates it from sibling delete_file and other graph-manipulation tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when the tool should not be used (active/published/bot-assigned graphs) and names the required alternative: 'сначала переключи активный через set_active_graph'. This gives the agent an explicit precondition and next step.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.